Nonsense. Gleick contacted a Heartland administrator and represented himself as a board member who had changed his email address. He obtained the documents through blatant deception, by pretending to be someone else. Even the New York Times is happy to acknowledge that this is "an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing."

Quote:

However, I see the defence has again been shifted, away from the fact the documents exist, away from the allegation that one document was a fake and onto the man himself.

And I see that many posters on this thread who represent themselves as advocates of ethics and truth are continuing to condone theft and fraud.

Quote:

Gleick deserves a medal.

The only thing Gleick will get is a lawsuit. I wonder how his defenders will reconcile his possibly criminal behavior with his testimony about scientific integrity?

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name

Quote:

I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Nonsense. Gleick contacted a Heartland administrator and represented himself as a board member who had changed his email address. He obtained the documents through blatant deception, by pretending to be someone else. Even the New York Times is happy to acknowledge that this is "an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing."

And I see that many posters on this thread who represent themselves as advocates of ethics and truth are continuing to condone theft and fraud.

The only thing Gleick will get is a lawsuit. I wonder how his defenders will reconcile his possibly criminal behavior with his testimony about scientific integrity?

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Criminal behaviour? I would say it's just a good piece of journalism on his part, doing the likes of your esteemed Megan McArdles work for her in fact. In fact were you not on here linking an article by her only a few pages ago that was a staunch defence of good journalism? and indeed you yourself had this to say -

Quote:

Those who are defending the "story" are also, as McArdle points out, defending journalism that is based on faked sources — something that would be entirely unacceptable if it came from their political opponents, but that is apparently defensible when it comes from their "own side."

And you have the temerity to laud someone else as a hypocrite.

With this new information, we get a better picture of just what happened, Gleick receives anonymous information in document form. He then in good journalistic practice confirms the authenticity of said documents and arranges to have them published. The man deserves a Pulitzer, and old Megan herself would be proud.

Again though, we see the argument shifted away from the fact the HI and those like them are attempting to use spin to cast doubt on good science, (which in reality is the real story here) and onto the old ad hominem attack on Gleick himself, which is ironic given your keenness to admonish others for doing so in other debates on the board.

With this new information, we get a better picture of just what happened, Gleick receives anonymous information in document form. He then in good journalistic practice confirms the authenticity of said documents and arranges to have them published. The man deserves a Pulitzer, and old Megan herself would be proud.

I just have to love the climate lobby revisionism. They are now actually refusing to acknowledge Gleick's fraud and deception and hailing him as a hero.

Quote:

Again though, we see the argument shifted away from the fact the HI and those like them are attempting to use spin to cast doubt on good science, (which in reality is the real story here) and onto the old ad hominem attack on Gleick himself, which is ironic given your keenness to admonish others for doing so in other debates on the board.

Yes, I'm sure that others will be along in a moment to tell us that Gleick's actions are a "red herring," that this "doesn't alter the facts," and that the "real story" here has something to do with fanatical libertarians and their evil Koch-funded climate denial hoax. Unfortunately, the media now has a real story to run with: That of a MacArthur-winning climate scientist with a highly questionable sense of ethics.

Here is Gleick on his high horse in Forbes decrying "scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods." Oops.

We're likely to see such faux outrage from the same folks who lauded the email hacking of the climate scientists back in 2009.

That was justified under public interest, this apparently is not - the difference eludes me, I admit, particularly when the hacking was a genuine crime, whereas I don't think "obtaining documents by deception" is on the statute books, despite the noises from HI.

That would probably be why the hacking generated a police response, and this has not. As such, describing it as "theft" or "criminal" seems perilously close to defamatory.

I just have to love the climate lobby revisionism. They are now actually refusing to acknowledge Gleick's fraud and deception and hailing him as a hero.

Yes, I'm sure that others will be along in a moment to tell us that Gleick's actions are a "red herring," that this "doesn't alter the facts," and that the "real story" here has something to do with fanatical libertarians and their evil Koch-funded climate denial hoax. Unfortunately, the media now has a real story to run with: That of a MacArthur-winning climate scientist with a highly questionable sense of ethics.

Here is Gleick on his high horse in Forbes decrying "scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods." Oops.

That's entirely correct - Gleick's actions don't alter the facts. Indeed, they could perfectly well be described as what used to be called "investigative journalism", which is what you have to do when secretive organisations don't want to reveal what they're doing in public.

I just have to love the climate lobby revisionism. They are now actually refusing to acknowledge Gleick's fraud and deception and hailing him as a hero.

Yes, I'm sure that others will be along in a moment to tell us that Gleick's actions are a "red herring," that this "doesn't alter the facts," and that the "real story" here has something to do with fanatical libertarians and their evil Koch-funded climate denial hoax. Unfortunately, the media now has a real story to run with: That of a MacArthur-winning climate scientist with a highly questionable sense of ethics.

Here is Gleick on his high horse in Forbes decrying "scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods." Oops.

Ethics? Now that is real delicious irony, I can only assume you missed the first 8 pages in the thread.

I also want to point out, I'm not part of teh climate lobby, I'm just someone who values science over ideology, a testament you yourself cannot make.

Gleick as the heroic, Pulitzer-deserving "investigative journalist"? I am really laughing out loud at this desperate rear-guard action, especially when he himself is on his knees groveling and apologizing to Heartland, with his professional reputation in tatters.

Blogs are reporting that Gleick has already been removed from the board of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Even his own compadres are distancing themselves from him.

With this new information, we get a better picture of just what happened, Gleick receives anonymous information in document form. He then in good journalistic practice confirms the authenticity of said documents and arranges to have them published. The man deserves a Pulitzer

And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

Gleick as the heroic, Pulitzer-deserving "investigative journalist"? I am really laughing out loud at this desperate rear-guard action, especially when he himself is on his knees groveling and apologizing to Heartland, with his professional reputation in tatters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duiske

And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

Disapproving of Gleick's actions, and of the Heartland Institute's alleged policies (as set out in these documents) needn't be mutually exclusive.

But he's a fool for making the statement he did. He chose to resort to deceit to obtain this information; he should've stood over his actions, no matter how obdurate that would've appeared.

Gleick as the heroic, Pulitzer-deserving "investigative journalist"? I am really laughing out loud at this desperate rear-guard action, especially when he himself is on his knees groveling and apologizing to Heartland, with his professional reputation in tatters.

Blogs are reporting that Gleick has already been removed from the board of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Even his own compadres are distancing themselves from him.

Rear guard action? Perhaps you have not noticed but on this thread you most certainly are in the minority, in fact had this been a real debate on the issue, your argument would have been laughed out of the hall on page 3.

Also, how did you read Gleicks statement and take from it the depiction of a man on his knees grovelling toward the HI?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duiske

And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

Once the papers were published, the story became more than the mere acquisition of the documents, it highlighted the immoral and bankrupt practices of these think tanks.

People would like to talk about that, however for all their talk of liberty, libertarians would rather see it locked back into it's pandoras box, and instead concentrate on ad hominem attacks, deflection, rejecting reason, logic and participating gleefully in downright anti-science all the while spouting nonsense about ethics! Enough to nauseate anyone that is.

Gleick as the heroic, Pulitzer-deserving "investigative journalist"? I am really laughing out loud at this desperate rear-guard action, especially when he himself is on his knees groveling and apologizing to Heartland, with his professional reputation in tatters.

Blogs are reporting that Gleick has already been removed from the board of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Even his own compadres are distancing themselves from him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duiske

And again, you are trying to defend the ethics and professionalism of someone who openly admits to unethical and unprofessional behavior.

The smoke machine is now at full spin, somewhere north of ad hominem and still accelerating. Gleick's actions are irrelevant to the revealed facts about HI, whatever bearing they may have on his future career.

Once the papers were published, the story became more than the mere acquisition of the documents, it highlighted the immoral and bankrupt practices of these think tanks.

In case you've missed today's news, the story is now about the immoral and ethically bankrupt behavior of one of the world's top climate scientists.

New York Times blogger Andrew Revkin, who is one of the world's most influential environment commentators, has written that:

Quote:

Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I'm sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the "rational public debate" that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

At least some on the pro-AGW side can see Gleick for what he really is — a decorated scientist who became so deeply embroiled in trench warfare with "deniers" that he decided, by his own admission, to compromise his own and his profession's ethics in an attempt to damage the reputation of a libertarian think-tank.

Whatever damage Gleick has done to Heartland's reputation has been immeasurably outweighed by the damage he has done to his own reputation, and to the interests of his colleagues and his profession. The New York Times understands that, the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics understands that, and many others in the climate movement get it, too. The posters on this board who are gritting their teeth and doggedly lauding Gleick as a heroic investigative journalist clearly don't get it ... but that hardly matters. The people who do matter, regardless of what side of the debate they are on, see this as a spectacular own goal by a prominent climate scientist. As the New York Times notes, Gleick has "greatly set back any prospects of the country having a rational public debate" about climate science.

As for Heartland, its feisty, tenacious response seems only to be winning it more support among the libertarian-conservative philanthropic community — which will translate into more and larger donations.